Agenda item

5.1

5.2

Nasar Raoof presented a question: Being born, raised, worked and lived in Page Hall,  The ongoing situation in page hall is getting worse and recent events being reported in the media where authorities are now being attacked during the course of their duties is an example of how council and police approach to Page Hall is and has been a big failure. Will the council not now but sit down and plan strategically it’s approach to Page Hall and how resources are being used ? Throwing money simply just doesn’t cut it any more surely ? 

Response: Thank you for attending today and for the work you do in the community.  As a new Leader I will be looking at issues with fresh eyes, including the issues faced in Page Hall.  There are no doubt significant issues faced by the local community. If what is being done is not delivering for residents we need to look at new ideas.  I am open to such new ideas to deliver a comprehensive strategy and would welcome input from yourself and the the community to co-design solutions, in the spirit of partnership.

The Page Hall neighbourhood service has created a 18 point action plan based on feedback from local residents and partners.  The aim of the plan is to raise overall standards in the area and to make Page Hall a more sustainable community and includes proposals around finding solutions to issues such as environmental and pest issues, overcrowding and poor property conditions. The service is based in Page Hall and acts as a hub, designed to join up many of the services that work in the area.  To find solutions we need a strong dialogue with all local stakeholders, such as yourself. 

We need to find solutions by working together to share intelligence and achieve a joined up response to local issues.  There are many strong links with local voluntary, community and faith groups.  These relationships are vital if we are to make progress.  We need to build on these further and I welcome your feedback and input from you and colleagues in Page Hall.

5.3

Hafeas Rehman (Sheffield Taxi Trade Association) submitted a question: We the members Sheffield Taxi Trade Association (STTA) are asking Sheffield City Council and this committee to do the right thing by extending the exemption for Taxis until June 2024.

The current leadership of SCC has committed to tackling the 'Cost of Living Crisis', taxi drivers are also affected by the Cost of Living Crisis, yet SCC is forcing taxi drivers into replacing their vehicles during these difficult times.

1) Does SCC recognise that taxi drivers are also subjected to the Cost of Living Crisis?

2) Are you aware that to replace an existing vehicle with a brand new vehicle, the cost has almost doubled since covid?

3) Are you aware that the cost of replacing an existing vehicle with a used vehicle has increased by over 40% since covid?

4) if you were not aware before you are now, so how do you expect taxi drivers to finance the change in the vehicle?

At this point, you may point toward the financial support offered by the CAZ scheme. Initially, taxi drivers were told they will receive a £10k grant to replace with an electric cab and a £6k grant to replace with Euro 6 vehicle.

5) Are you aware that Hackney Carriage drivers only receive up to £5k of the £6k and Private Hire only receive £2650 of the £3500 grant? The £6k and £3.5k was awarded if you take out the subsided loan.

6) An electric wheelchair accessible vehicle cost approx £70k and a Euro 6 approx £40k (rear-loading wheelchair access), do you really think this is a fair deal?

7) The conditions of the grant until the launch of the scheme, do you think this is the right way to do business in the name of SCC, where is the transparency?

8) 'When were the 'conditions of grant' finalised'?

9) When were the elected members made aware of the 'conditions of grant'?

We are guessing the government introduced CAZ funding to encourage businesses to change over to cleaner vehicles. So would it not make sense that you would make it attractive and easy for taxi drivers to replace their vehicles by accessing the fund easily?

A vehicle to be licensed as a Hackney Carriage can not be older than 5 years (recently changed to 7.5 years) and can be licensed until its 15th anniversary, if the license is not renewed on time then after reaching its 5th anniversary then that vehicle cannot be relicensed. So we are guessing that in the business plan submitted to the government for funding all non-compliant taxis are accounted for because the aim is to replace all non-compliant vehicles.

A condition of the grant is that a vehicle has to be owned by an individual for at least one year for eligibility, we believe that this is wrong because there are many existing taxi drivers that have been Hackney Carriage drivers for several years but decided to upgrade or downgrade for personal reasons with vehicles that are already licensed and non-compliant.

10) What is the procedure for a case-by-case consideration where an owner has owned for less than one year?

11) Are you aware that before a driver can access the grant, the currently licensed taxi has to be sold, putting drivers out of work for at least two weeks and the grant is only paid into the seller's bank account, is this acceptable?

12) Are you aware that to receive the retrofit grant, you first have to fund the retrofit works and claim the grant after submitting the receipt?

13) The cost of retrofit is over £8k, where are drivers to find the money to fund this work?

There is no local retrofitter garage. It is our understanding that other Local Authorities have made an agreement with the retrofit garages that the council will directly pay the grant to them, hence it becomes affordable for drivers.

14) Can retrofit payments be made to garages directly?

15) In 2016 STTA proposed to SCC to allow rear-loading vehicles as Hackney Carriage, so why was the Hackney Carriage vehicle specification Policy held back for several years?

16) If at the time (2016) SCC allowed policy change then the Hackney Carriage fleet would have been compliant, so why should Hackney Carriage drivers suffer due to the incompetence (or was it some sick attempt deliberately delay to keep non compliant vehicle numbers high) of SCC?

In recent correspondence with the CAZ team, we raised the ongoing issue with the availability of wheelchair-accessible vehicles, CAZ came back with a figure of over 700+ vehicles available also in the same email he is contradicting this by stating that the CAZ financial providers confirmed there is pressure on the availability of rear-loading vehicles. On challenging this outlandish figure of 700 vehicles, the CAZ team has now stated that the largest dealer of these vehicles Cab Direct has 70 vehicles in stock and can supply within one month. We have done our own test purchases with Cab Direct, they only have 20 brand-new vehicles and only 2 used vehicles at the time of call AND these cannot be delivered until August/September, priced at just under £40k.

17) Who can these drivers contact for their cases to be heard and advice given?

Taxi Licensing Section office - Since COVID taxi drivers have suffered in many ways, Cost of Living being the biggest challenge, with sky rocketing fuel prices, loss of night economy almost collapsed for Hackney Carriage drivers.  Since the easing of lockdown the taxi licensing section at Staniforth Road Depot has remained closed for taxi drivers, this has led to an unfair burden on our voluntary organisation, we deal with approximately on average 20 cases per week helping drivers with issues such as helping with applications, booking MOTs, providing forms, etc etc.

It has been over three years since the licensing office was closed to taxi drivers, over this time it has proven that this new system does not work with many issues including regular 'crashing' of the BigChange App, this failure can no longer continue we are fee paying customer and demand that the office is re-opened to taxi drivers so that they can get the service they need and deserve.

Response: Thank you for your question on behalf of your members. This doesn’t fall on deaf ears. You do an excellent job in speaking up for them and I know how tenaciously you have their back.

I want to thank you for not only attending today, but also for your time last week when we met, together with my colleague Cllr Ben Miskell, Chair of the Transport, Climate and Regeneration Committee.

It was hugely appreciated to talk through some of the things we have discussed today, and that Mr Hussain has raised, not least the last two points you raised around the licensing service. And since that meeting, we have taken up some of those issues, and when we have answers back from the transport and licensing teams, we will come back to you and to continue that dialogue in the way that we would.

Right from the beginning I’ve said that I want to hear from people about the challenges they are facing, and it was so valuable to speak with you and to hear from your membership body about those challenges.

The transport team have provided a detailed set of responses to your questions which will be provided to you. When you have had a chance to digest them, Cllr Miskell and I would be happy to have a further conversation. Let me take a step back from the detail for a second.

There are some things that we all agree on and there are some things that are in the gift of SCC and some that are not. Clean air is a fundamental right. 1 in 20 deaths is attributable in some form to air pollution. Let us all be clear - this is not okay. We need a society wide response to this. But this has to be done fairly.

It is of course important to remember that the Clean Air Zone was mandated by government and the timing of this is far from ideal, not least because of the serious cost-of-living crisis that affects us all, and I know is affecting your trade very much. This has always been in our minds – and it’s why the council and the previous Leadership team, successfully negotiated enhanced support and an additional delay of nearly 6 months specifically for hackney carriage taxis.

But of course, this doesn’t go as far as we would have liked, or you would have liked. We will continue to bang the drum for Sheffield drivers so that they can get the best funding available from government. To do so successfully, and I’ll repeat the point I made to you Mr Rehman last week, we need to build-up a clear evidence base to try getting more financial support from government, and what you’re describing today and over the last week, and in the press, shows the limitations of government’s support that has been provided.

We will keep challenging the government for far better support and bring about as much flexibility as we can to ensure the best support, is provided to you, in the fairest way.

As you have identified in your questions, there are, however, things within the gift of Sheffield City Council: the need for providing clarity and information on support, a need to respond quickly, a need for high quality customer services mindset, and the need for the Council to listen to what people are telling us and to respond accordingly.

It is clear that you and your members are not satisfied with SCC in this regard. As Leader, I will take that up with the transport service, as there is a clear discrepancy between what you and your members feel they are experiencing, and how it’s intended to be experienced.  And It’s our job to close that gap. I won’t make promises today that can’t be kept, and I want to be crystal clear with you all that the government’s Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU), which oversees the Clean Air Zone, have told SCC they could not extend the exemption beyond 5^th June.

Thank you again for coming here today, and speaking with me recently, and to continuing our dialogue, and once you have the detailed officer answers in front of you to all of your questions, and once you and your members have reviewed these, I genuinely want to hear of your experiences as drivers, and that’s the kind of dialogue we need to get into.

5.4

Nasar Raoof presented a question: In relation to the issue of red lines, 12 hour bus lanes and changes to parking along Ecclesall Road.  "Will the Council commit to writing to the mayor of Yorkshire Oliver Coppard who is wanting to push this forward".

Response: I can confirm that we will be liaising with SYMCA and the Mayor on the Ecclesall Road and Abbeydale Road schemes. These schemes are part of the South Yorkshire Transforming Cities Fund Programme, and SYMCA oversee the funding and overall management of this. Providing them with regular updates on the progress of our scheme development and delivery is something that happens on a regular basis.

It is currently planned that a report on the Ecclesall Road and Abbeydale Road schemes will be considered by the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Committee in the Summer (2023). This will consider the development of the schemes to date, the previous consultation undertaken and the proposed next steps.

5.5

It was noted that written response would be provided to the questions submitted by Mr Ahmed and Mr A, Hussain who were unable to attend the meeting.